Which one to buy Fortress Italy or Normandy

[womble]

...what's a refreshing monkey?

Any monkey trained to provide hot lemon-scented towels and mints after a curry.

Any monkey trained to bring me Mojitos.

[John Kettler]

Mord,

That's what I get for not paying attention! I based my welcome on the post count and failed to look at the join date.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Destraex1]

Personally I found CMBN to be way too hard to look at. I have played more combat mission since it became a little easier on the eyes. I don't just mean I am a graphics junkie but more the fact that terrain and units are easier to distinguish and everything is simply clearer and smoother.

CMBN really ran horribly on my machine where CMFI runs nicely. The game is simply much NEATER in presentation.

[MikeyD]

If you're of a nasty temperment and want to make thier decision even harder start creating and posting 3rd party CMFI scenarios to Repository. CMBN is currently running a bit ahead of CMFI on the scenario front.

[nik mond]

If I had the choice to start all over again I would start with italy first. Knowing i wouldn't just stop at one Combat Mission title and would eventually get the other. Mostly due to the advancement of German hand held antitank weapons. Its difficult to go back in time. The game content is pretty much equal for the stock games. For chronological reasons go italy first, but hey that's just me.

[Andrew H.]

@OP: Instead of asking us which one to buy, you should choose randomly and then let the Forum tell you why you chose the wrong one!

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's interesting that people find the lack of infantry AT weapons in CMFI a plus. To me armor is already unrealistically dominant in CMBN.

[xian]

It's interesting that people find the lack of infantry AT weapons in CMFI a plus. To me armor is already unrealistically dominant in CMBN.

Yes indeed. H2H battle outcomes often end up being decided by who has the last tank.

[Vinnart]

To me armor is already unrealistically dominant in CMBN.

Can you give a good reason why armor should not dominate infantry on the battlefield when that is how it is in reality?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Can you give a good reason why armor should not dominate infantry on the battlefield when that is how it is in reality?

I said unrealistically dominant. As in dominant to an unrealistic extent.

And yeah, I can live a list of reasons why that is the case if you would like.

[Vinnart]

I said unrealistically dominant. As in dominant to an unrealistic extent.

And yeah, I can live a list of reasons why that is the case if you would like.

Giving examples will always support, and make for a better critique.

[MikeyD]

I recall something someone once said about CMBB, that newbies play Tigers versus Stalins, veterans play Finns versus Hungarian infantry or something like that. Sicily was not particularly good tank country, you're perfectly justified in playing all infantry engagements in mountainous terrain. Leave that pesky armor behind entirely. Six Shermans on a flat map versus Italian anti-parachute troops will indeed be tank-dominant. No way around that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Giving examples will always support, and make for a better critique.

1. Infantry cannot use AT rockets from the cover of buildings, even partially destroyed buildings.

2. Infantry cannot use building corners as cover to fire around.

3. Tank crews have instant borg communication. When one crew member spots a target the tank instantly begins rotating to target.

4. No gun elevation limits. Tanks can fire at targets straight above them and, more importantly, right next to them. Tanks can even if necessary fire through their own hulls to hit close assaulting infantry.

5. Tank crews are more reluctant to abandon a tank after penetrations than they should be. How much so is hard to say, but even BFC has said it's too optimistic right now.

6. Tank crews that take a casualty but do not bail out continue to operate without missing a beat.

7. Although hard to prove that it's unrealistic, tanks seem really, really good at spotting while moving, even while buttoned.

8. Tanks are more accurate while firing on the move than in reality.

[MikeyD]

I must say I've never seen 6. A tank takes a casualty, especially a casualty by penetration and those guys are no good to me for awhile. 8 is more problematic. BFC doesn''t have brief halts to fire so abstracts things slightly by allowing firing on the move. Usually its guns with gryo stabilizers than have any luck at all luck firing on the move - Sherman and Stuart.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I know the reason for it. But I was asked for reasons so I decided to be inclusive.

As for 6, I will do a test or 2 but I don't think there is any "shocked" status for tank crews in CMx2. If the crew stops functioning after a casualty it's usually because they are about to bail.

[Andrew H.]

I think that armor is more powerful in CM than it should be. But there's not an easy way to fix this, since by far the biggest reason is the player's GodView . Infantry-armor cooperation was really hard, and the US spent most of '44 trying to get it right; they finally found that semi-permanently attaching independent tank battalions to an ID was the best way for the units to get used to each other. (And of course they installed phones so that the infantry and armor could communicate - and later radios, but not until '45 I think).

And for a lot of important battles in '44, they *didn't* have it right - the tankers and infantry had different radios; to communicate, the infantry company commander had to radio division HQ, who would pass a message to the tank battalion's HQ, who would contact the company, who would contact the appropriate tank platoon commander and explain what was needed.

But in CM, this communication is instant and telepathic, and even if a tank hasn't spotted an infantry unit, it can still know to area fire a random bit of forest halfway across the map.

For this to work realistically, we would need a cooperative game with one person controlling the tanks and the other the infantry. If I, as the infantry commander, needed help, I should have to call my mom and describe what I need shot at. She would then call your mom and describe what I need done. Your mom would then call you with instructions on what to shoot.

The GodView topic has been discussed to death lo these many years, and I agree that taking away too much control from the player leads to much worse situations than we have now. But I think it is the largest contributor.

There should probably also be a lot more infantry-only battles. And more infantry-light battles...a tank battalion per ID means a tank company per regiment or a tank platoon per battalion; a lot of QBs seem to have more like a tank platoon per company. (And, yeah, maybe it's the lead company, etc....)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Play Green Troops!

Check out my new sig.

[sburke]

I think that armor is more powerful in CM than it should be. But there's not an easy way to fix this, since by far the biggest reason is the player's GodView . Infantry-armor cooperation was really hard, and the US spent most of '44 trying to get it right

*snip*

The GodView topic has been discussed to death lo these many years, and I agree that taking away too much control from the player leads to much worse situations than we have now. But I think it is the largest contributor.

Personally I think that is spot on. It is in my mind the source of a lot of the supposed game weaknesses that are simply unavoidable if one is going to be able to play the game. Ultimately c2 is absolute other than FOs and unit morale as we are the c2 network.

Check out my new sig.

Play conscript tanks

LOL That'll certainly put a dent in your tank rush.

[Sixxkiller]

Well i see your point about communication between infantry, artillery, and armored units, but if we were to simulate exactly how it was or how you think it was, who would play that game?

CM is designed for you to take control of your units in a godmode. If you took away this, people would be even more frustrated and play a few times before throwing it away like a used condom.

As for tanks being too powerful in the game, I do not agree. Tanks are always a focal point and usually without tank or real anti-tank support, facing them especially at standoff ranges requires a lot of tactical capital, and just like in real life, usually cost way too much. I think it's magnified in this game to an extent simply because you have more limited men, supplies, and choices than you would on a real battlefield. I guess it's all on how you look at it though.

I think that armor is more powerful in CM than it should be. But there's not an easy way to fix this, since by far the biggest reason is the player's GodView . Infantry-armor cooperation was really hard, and the US spent most of '44 trying to get it right; they finally found that semi-permanently attaching independent tank battalions to an ID was the best way for the units to get used to each other. (And of course they installed phones so that the infantry and armor could communicate - and later radios, but not until '45 I think).

And for a lot of important battles in '44, they *didn't* have it right - the tankers and infantry had different radios; to communicate, the infantry company commander had to radio division HQ, who would pass a message to the tank battalion's HQ, who would contact the company, who would contact the appropriate tank platoon commander and explain what was needed.

But in CM, this communication is instant and telepathic, and even if a tank hasn't spotted an infantry unit, it can still know to area fire a random bit of forest halfway across the map.

For this to work realistically, we would need a cooperative game with one person controlling the tanks and the other the infantry. If I, as the infantry commander, needed help, I should have to call my mom and describe what I need shot at. She would then call your mom and describe what I need done. Your mom would then call you with instructions on what to shoot.

The GodView topic has been discussed to death lo these many years, and I agree that taking away too much control from the player leads to much worse situations than we have now. But I think it is the largest contributor.

There should probably also be a lot more infantry-only battles. And more infantry-light battles...a tank battalion per ID means a tank company per regiment or a tank platoon per battalion; a lot of QBs seem to have more like a tank platoon per company. (And, yeah, maybe it's the lead company, etc....)

[sburke]

Well i see your point about communication between infantry, artillery, and armored units, but if we were to simulate exactly how it was or how you think it was, who would play that game?

I don't think he would disagree with you on that. From my perspective he was simply pointing out that the nature of the game (almost any game) is you are all of the decision makers and therefore your decisions have a lot more consistency (one would hope, maybe not in my case) than would exist in the real world.

[womble]

I wonder if this is one of the reasons the Bocage has such a fascination for WW2 gamers. With the short sightlines, the unavoidable (absent significant mental gymnastics) "Borg"y nature of information sharing by way of the player is somewhat mitigated, since long range weapon systems can't "area fire a bit of forest halfway across the map" due to the presence of pesky hedgerows. As a terrain, it drags a game a bit closer to "reality". Of course, it offers its own challenges in the modelling of short range coordination of arms, but it perhaps grates less.

[Sixxkiller]

I hear ya, just pointing out that it is what it is. Real war isnt fun but games about wars damn well better be. If BFC went out of business I would have to spend more time with the gf and so would you.

I don't think he would disagree with you on that. From my perspective he was simply pointing out that the nature of the game (almost any game) is you are all of the decision makers and therefore your decisions have a lot more consistency (one would hope, maybe not in my case) than would exist in the real world.

[sburke]

I hear ya, just pointing out that it is what it is. Real war isnt fun but games about wars damn well better be. If BFC went out of business I would have to spend more time with the gf and so would you.

I am gonna plead total ignorance as to what that might mean just in case my spouse ever looks at this forum...

I don't know honey, I am not sure what he meant by that, but maybe it has something to do with his handle.... :confused:

[Baneman]

...

For this to work realistically, we would need a cooperative game with one person controlling the tanks and the other the infantry. If I, as the infantry commander, needed help, I should have to call my mom and describe what I need shot at. She would then call your mom and describe what I need done. Your mom would then call you with instructions on what to shoot.

...

Haha, that would be a brilliant way of creating FOW !

It might be possible to use that method in something like noob's operational game - each "ground commander" has to relay his intentions via a 3rd party - could lead to some interesting outcomes.

[Erwin]

Mom's would also love it as you'd be calling them all day long.